I'm with John here. The task duration should reflect the time over
which work will take place. People aren't working when they're waiting.
One hour of work over a 3 day duration implies they ARE working, albeit
very very slowly so in 3 days time they only get on man-hour of work
accomplished. In reality, while waiting on day 2 or day 3 they're
really doing nothing and can thus do something else. I grant you the
numbers are so small that in this case it doesn't really matter, but
consider this slightly different situation - I have 1 day's work, not
just 1 hour, and the same 3 days for the responses to come in. Showing
it fixed duration of 3 days with 8 hours work means the resource doing
the task is allocated 2 2/3 hours per day and leaving him free for other
things 5 1/3 hours each day. But that's not an accurate reflection of
what he is doing at all - in fact, he's not available for anything else
at all on Day 1 and is totally free on Day's 2 & 3, creating a totally
different resource allocation picture and possibly affecting resource
leveling signifigantly.
The example I use in my classes is preparing a customer satisfaction
survey - printing the survey form is a task, stuffing the envelopes is a
task, taking it to post office is a task, but waiting 2 weeks for enough
responses to come back to begin data analysis is a lag time.
1: Write survey, 2d
2: Print survey, 1d, 1FS
3: Stuff envelopes, 1d, 2FS
4: Deliver to PO, 1h, 3FS
5: Sufficient responses returned, 0d, 4FS+2W
6: Analyse responses, 2d, 5FS
If enough answers are back in a week or if the response in the 3 day
task comes back earlier, just updating the milestone with an actual
complete will pull the subsequent tasks forward. Tasks are actions
requiring effort by resources - waiting time, vacation time, days off,
etc are by definition non-actions and thus should not be represented as
tasks.